Abbott foray will highlight tussle within Coalition

Phillip Coorey

Tony Abbott is not crazy enough to believe that he will ever lead the Liberal Party, a prospect he fleetingly embraced after the last election before pulling out of the leadership race.

Abbott, however, does feel he has a much bigger contribution to make than his current role of being down in the pecking order in the shadow ministry and not in the thick of day-to-day tactical decisions.

He is putting the finishing touches to a book he began writing after the election which will outline, as he sees it, the direction the Liberal Party needs to take, or at least, a discussion it has to have.

Due for publication in late July, Abbott's manifesto will recognise that all new Oppositions need to do some soul-searching to rediscover what they believe in and where they want to go before being fit to return to government.

The success of the Howard government was a product of the directional debates and arguments the party had during its 13 wilderness years, Abbott believes.

He also believes Labor will not endure in government this time around because it never had the discussion while in opposition. The closest it came to directional rediscovery was the attempt by Simon Crean to reduce the influence of trade unions and the philosophical essays Kevin Rudd wrote for The Monthly.

Advertisement

The book will be conservative in its thrust and there will be policy ideas, including advocating a more aggressive approach to fix our dysfunctional system of federation than John Howard or Rudd was willing to embrace.

Essentially, the Commonwealth should call the shots and individual states should no longer be able to veto policy.

Abbott's book, like most things he does, will no doubt be controversial because its aim is to generate debate. The author believes it will become a problem only if debate dissolves into rancour.

You will now receive updates fromBreaking News Alert

Breaking News Alert

Abbott promises to add another dimension to federal politics, which currently involves an Opposition banking on surfing to victory on the back of discontent with the Government's handling of the economic crisis.

(The Government did itself no favours after the budget with its silly spin-induced refusal to mention the debt and deficit numbers including the words "billion" and "dollars" for fear of the "grabs" being used against it in Coalition election ads. It made itself look scared and ashamed of a problem that it has spent months explaining is globally induced and not of its making.)

Abbott's foray will highlight the never-ending tussle within the Coalition over whether to adopt a moderate or conservative approach to policy. The wrestling has been a hallmark of Malcolm Turnbull's leadership.

As recently as budget week, there was another "robust" internal debate, this time over a bill Labor introduced in March to abolish the system in which immigration detainees have to pay the costs of their own incarceration.

Australia is the only country that charges detainees - even those found to be lawfully in the country - for their board and transport costs. The charge is currently $125.40 a day. Some accrue debts of more than $100,000, which severely hampers their attempts to settle in the country once released.

The system is costly to administer. Of the $54 million in debts accrued to June 30, 2008, only 3.3 per cent was recovered. For that, as well as humanitarian reasons, Labor has decided to scrap the system.

The Opposition immigration spokeswoman, Sharman Stone, took a submission to shadow cabinet recommending the Coalition support the bill. She was rolled.

It was argued that the Opposition could not blame Labor's "softening" of policy for the latest surge in boat arrivals, and then support such a bill. Furthermore, the Coalition believed philosophically that taxpayers should not bear the full cost of illegal arrivals. The party room ratified the decision on budget day and only a few moderates, including Petro Georgiou and Judi Moylan, complained.

Even when the moderate view prevails in shadow cabinet, the conservatives keep fighting. One source has described a tactic becoming more commonplace during sitting weeks in which shadow ministers meet in small groups to discuss having the party room overturn or influence a shadow cabinet decision.

"It's not necessarily their own portfolio, if you know what I mean, just a philosophical objection," the source said.

"A shadow cabinet submission gets put under some backbencher's door. It gives the outcome of the shadow cabinet and then they caucus to get that decision overturned.

"They make sure the backbenchers do it in tandem. When they go into the party room they're quite organised. One will jump up, and then the next will jump up and it's co-ordinated."

He believes the tactic was used to ensure the Coalition opposed outright the $42 billion stimulus package.